What on earth are you rambling about?

Something I am sure we can agree on given enough time.

I don't quite have a brain for math in my school so i have started my own system. I feel like mathematicians can get hung up in the language of maths and forget about their archeic origins?

What i'm saying is essentially well-fabricated bullshit. I can take someone who is inclined to believe in the spiritual and that person will instantly agree what i am saying. Take a person on lsd and i am sure that person will "get it" as well. I can explain it in pictory; Take the yin yang symbol. Forget about the two dots, simply take the colour white and the colour black. Blend them in a polar mix and make a circle.

What we did here is we took a quanty of black and a quantity of white. We added them together to make a third object, The yin yang symbol. We never lost our first quantities.. they still exist inside the third object. Hence, 1+1=3. (white, black and whiteblack)



I guess i am inclined to say that i am starting to think of maths as a form of alchemy. I am really quite serious about this although not attached. I think that in this fashion i can begin to understand maths much better than how they teach me maths at school. It is also very funny. ^^

Doesn't everyone have a faith based belief system, based upon personal experiences?

I don"t..... I am sceptical of anything that doesn"t have a workshop manual with clearly annotated diagrams that show you how it works, how to pull it apart and how to put it back together again.

Even if that is the case your still putting your ''faith'' in a belief system that is based on your personal experience. Your personal experience may be that the workshop manual is always correct, and since you have had positive interaction with it, you have faith (based off of your previous experience) that it will continue to operate in the same way.

Hold on there. You can't say that a plant makes a decision based on chemical reactions. That is perfectly valid for humans (or at least the illusion of a choice), but a chemical reaction does not choose to occur. It just occurs. At this point, we can't say that all plant behavior isn't just a result of spontaneous chemical reactions. But with humans it is much harder to explain away our behavior as solely being the result of chemical reactions.

Also, you sort of misused the abbreviation QED, or at least it makes no sense in this context. Even if we don't have any free will or even if we behave so similarly to plants, it doesn't make us plants.



Rationalism is the view that knowledge can be acquired through deduction. You have clearly used deduction to determine your belief system. But the reason that your belief system is not actually consistent with rationalism is due to the way that you define knowledge. In your system, knowledge is all subjective. You say that it can only point in the direction of truth, but if we can never know truth then we can never be sure that anything points to truth. It is equally as likely that subjective knowledge points to falsehood. In which case it is not knowledge, it is delusion.

We must be able to objectively know truth in order for reasoning to be valid. And one thing I've just realized is that you have not taken into account the concept of definition. If you define a term you take away the subjectivity of it. That term is no longer subject to the beliefs or feelings of the individual.

If the number "1" is defined symbolically as any single object, it's definition is no longer subjective and therefore can only be objective. If I take one object and another object and then define this as the number "2", and then define "+" to mean addition and "=" to equal the result the addition, then "1+1=2" is no longer subjective. It does not change as long as everyone using this system adheres to the definitions within the system.

What math proves is that we can create a system that is so well defined and constrained that it loses all subjectivity. Math is objectively true. Just as when someone says that a tree or shrub is a photoautotrophic creature whose main structural component is wood, that statement is objectively true as long the definitions remain consistent through out the system created by those definitions.

What this shows is that objective truth can exist without a doubt in the universe and that we can know it. But objective truth is not always true in the universe. I can define anything to mean anything within a system, but that system does not have to be a reflection of reality. There are instances where math describes a concept that is objectively true within the confines of mathematics, but which has no counterpart in the universe. This shows that there can be ideas that are independent of the universe.

I feel that I understand your belief system pretty well. And I find that your belief system has flawed definitions of objective and subjective. It also puts false limitations on the mind of the individual and the ability to perceive objective truth. These and some of the others issues that I've mentioned make this belief system logically inconsistent. I agree with some aspects of it, but in the end I feel that your belief system drowns itself in it's need for everything to be subjective. It ignore the fact that definition creates objectivity. Confining an idea does not strip it of its truth, it cements its truth by stripping it of it subjectivity.


Numbers are not subjective. The symbols may be arbitrary, but they are completely constrained by their definitions. If you decide to switch the definition of “2” and “3”, it changes none of the concepts of mathematics.

If you decide to subscribe to a different number system with different definition for each symbol, that is your choice. But once you create a concrete definition for a symbol, it is no longer subject to the thoughts, beliefs, or feelings of an individual. So it becomes objective. It becomes an intrinsic aspect of an object.

I didn"t say plants made decisions based on chemical reactions. Shadow did. So i drew a possible analogy to humans. Doesn"t photosynthesis produce a chemical reaction? Don"t sunflowers and other plants follow the sun in order to photosynthesise? I call that decision making. My girlfriends kiwi plant travels all over the garden looking for things to climb up. When it finds a stick to climb is some sort of reaction taking place to make it decide to go up the stick?



Speak for yourself. I am quite happy in my vegetative state.



My personal experience is that the workshop manuals arn"t always correct. Haynes workshop manuals, for instance, are sometimes referred to as the Haynes book of fiction in certain circles that i have moved in. Therefore i use them as a guide and only place complete confidence in myself. And even when it comes to myself i have lapses of faith.
QED i have no real unshakeable faith (apologies to PowerfulMedicine if i am again misusing the abbreviation).

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and I am sorry to say that what you're writing here makes no sense at all, except the fact that combining two objects (numbers) gives a new object (number). Redefining the symbol "2" as "3", which it seems you have done, doesn't make mathematics subjective. The relationships between numbers are still the same. However, if you actually mean that 1 + 1 = 3, and 3 is not the same as 2, you are in serious trouble.

Have you noticed the title of the thread? What if it"s all bullshit? It seems only right that the quality of our posts should degrade into said bullshit (no offence Infectedstyle, i am as full of BS as the next person).

I have noticed, yes, but I do not understand nor agree that our posts should degrade into bullshit because of the title. That doesn't seem to be the point of the thread to me.

In a sense yes. On a smaller scale yes. Outside of the box, on a larger scale no. Because we have all agreed to believe a definition does not make it objective. It only makes it ''true'' on that level in which we all agree.

Clearly there is a language barrier between you and me .



Flawed by your standards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Different by mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When 2 people who look at the same thing from different perspectives, they are going to get a different VIEW. I am looking at this in a much broader context than you are. Unfortunately to communicate to you I must use your language. Do you wish for me to create new words in the english language...lol? I can try I am not trying to redefine words, just to show that they can be used in the same context, but applied to a much larger scale. with out needing to create a new word.

If you can't see that, then you will always miss my points.



Definition does not create true objectivity.

Collective subjectivism.

Subjectivism is the philosophical tenet that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience"

So Collective Subjectivism would go something like this...the Gist:
Due to the limitations of human sensory perception, there is no real way to tell if an objective world exists. It's the classic question of "what if the color you call blue looks entirely different to me?".

So just because we have all agreed to call something blue, does not mean that we all experience it the same way.

In my humble opinion, you are the one who is putting false limitations on the mind.


peace bro. Wish you the best...Gotta hop out of this convo now...It's too draining. I'll let you get the last words in. I know you'll appreciate it

Once back in the days i was sitting at home with my parents and me and my old man were watching basketball game. It was European basketball not NBA. So the game was intense and both teams were going for broke. Both of us enjoyed every bit of it. When game ended my dad walked to the fridge and brought new fresh ice cold beers and we sat around drinking beer and talkeing about the game and what made impression on both of us.
But funny thing happened.
More we talked more we came to realize that by our descriptions we must have been watching two totally different games. Stuff that stuck in my mind and words that i used to describe were pretty much different from his and vice verse.
So going by this there must have been at least three different ball games happening at the same time

Subjectivism doesn't mean the same thing as subjective or subjectivity. And if you truly believe in subjectivism, then delusions are unquestionable. But you've already explained that you don't believe this to be true. Here is just one of the logical inconsistencies in your belief system.


But if you measure the wavelength of the color blue using multiple machines calibrated as similarly as possible then each machine will take an objective measurement that is nearly the same. These measurements won't be subject to the experience of any person and won't have the same limitations and uncertainties of the human experience. It won't matter how the individual sees blue because the machine measures an intrinsic property and not someone's experience of that property. The measurement may not be exact, but there is a level of certainty associated with each measurement. No matter what, the wavelength of blue light is about 450-495 nanometers.


I would truly love to hear your rationale for this opinion. My views place far less limit on the mind than yours do. I actually believe that the mind can perceive truth and that it is able to think objectively. The human mind can create concepts that lack subjectivity and that can therefore be used to understand the objective truths of the universe. You don't believe any of the previous statements. What limitations have I put on the mind that you don't agree with?


I don't see why you're getting so defensive. Are you afraid to question your own belief system? It's too draining to think of things in a way that you've never thought of before? I have no problem with someone questioning my beliefs and if my beliefs happen to change as a result, then so be it. The only reason to get defensive is if you are overly attached to your belief system. I think that running away when someone questions your beliefs is just a sign that you don't feel your beliefs will hold up under scrutiny and that your ego won't let you admit when you feel you are wrong.

Discussion allows us to find the holes in our beliefs and patch them up. This doesn't mean that there will ever be a complex belief system that is free of flaws in logic. It just means that the best belief systems are those that evolve with time in order to fix as many logical inconsistencies as possible - that is if you actually value rationalism.

You are hereby awarded the prize for Superb and Gratuitous Overuse of the Exclamation Point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, I will fall for your 'bait' yet again





Yes, there are logical inconsistencies in my belief system. Duh??? You think I'm not aware of this.... Life is a paradox. Logic will only take you so far! I would really like to hear how you can explain life ''logically''...lol How does something come from nothing? If something doesn't come from nothing, how could something always have been? If you think you can answer these questions logically, you my friend are the one that is DELUSIONAL!!!!!!!!



I have responded with my views to this already earlier in the thread. You know why I am drained? Because I am having to essentially repeat the same things over and over again.... And I am asking myself, why I am doing this, and willing to do it? I guess I was willing to do it, because you kept confronting me and putting me on the spot, so I figured I would just answer some. Now it's really just becoming a waste of my time, and anyone else who is reading this thread, as I understand your views, have had similar views in the past, and am not gleaning any new insights from them.

Edit: Ever heard of wave/particle duality?

https://en.wikipedia.org...E2%80%93particle_duality I assume you think that some of the most profound, insightful, genius scientists and mathematicians of our time are delusional as well?

There is very strong evidence that The observer influences the observed....How can your 495 nanometer wavelength of light be both a wave and a particle and still be objectively true? Answer is, it can't in the system you have defined. And these machines you speak of can take an objective measurement of something that can exist in 2 different states being, of which we have no idea what either one really is? I don't think so, and I think you are fooling yourself. Can you not see that your belief system is ''flawed'' (to use your terminology). I would say that your beliefs are different, that they are subjectively true, but not objectively true.



lol. Refer to almost everyone of my posts in this thread if you want an answer to that...




Am I afraid to question my own belief system? what a joke. That is what I do every day, and have done that for the last 12 years....haha. afraid....NO.. I LOVE IT.

Edit: And by the way, thanks for psychoanalysing me...lol...Now i dont have to go to the doctor this week...Yay. Maybe they'll even take me off all this strange medication i'm taking to keep me from being delusional. I guess you would say that the meds aren't working. Maybe they should up the doses??

And having a subjective belief system allows for the person to be much more malleable in the way they perceive reality. Objectivity leads to rigidity. Good luck climbing out the box your in (I've been trying my best to help get you out! ). I prefer to stay outside of the box, or even better.....what box?? What limitation? I am my only limitation.

Part of the reason I have gotten defensive, is because I don't appreciate a person, who just keeps pushing and pushing. What are you looking for? Satisfaction that you are correct. Affirmation of your belief system? You are certainly looking for more than just an open discussion, or you would have handled some of your responses differently.



'''Edit: ''running away''. If you actually understood some of what I've said you would realize that I know I'm ''wrong in your opinion and many others''...lol. You are clearly unable, or more than likely unwilling to see my perspective. You are clearly a very smart person. What you don't get is that I see your perspective quite clearly, as I have had very similar views as yours in the past. And i mostly AGREE with your perspective, although I consider your truths to be subjective....They are your truths

I've answered and answered. What do you want from me, to essentially repeat myself over and over again for you to get some twisted satisfaction, and call it a discussion? You've missed so many of my repeated points. I don't care if you agree, but you don't even understand half the stuff I am talking about. There is clearly a language barrier between us. So why do you say that i'm running away when someone questions my beliefs? If we can't properly communicate, why should I continue trying to communicate with you, when you clearly don't appreciate it...Do I owe you something? Yet you try to make me feel guilty when I've had enough, and tell me that my ego won't let me admit something when i'm wrong...Geez. That must take a lot of nerve to say something like that. ''' /end edit

You remind me of one of my ex girlfriends....always trying to draw me back in, so she could set me straight. Trying to make me feel guilty, for ''running away'' when discussions of ours turned into arguments. Agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that was impossible for her. And I have gotten defensive because I don't appreciate when a person tries to do that to me. And i've had enough experience with people like that.

I'm sorry to the nexus for raising the tone of my post. I hope I haven't violated any rules. I have tried to respond in a respectful but firm way.

You sound very angry, and I don't want to make light of your situation, but do you need a hug? A back massage? Serenity now, serenity now...............

I'm fine thank you I'm actually not angry at all, in fact I find a lot of this quite amusing! (i'm only gonna put one exclamation point for you 112233) Just dont' appreciate some of PowerfulMedicines comments...that's all, and wanted to make it very clear

Source?



JBArk

There's only one objective thing you can say for absolute certain- that there is at the very least a sort of illusion of experience.

We always end up here. I bet if I opened up a thread about cookie recipes by page 5 people would be saying 'but how can you prove stuff is really stuff!?'.

You put dough in the oven, you get deliciousness. You put smoalk in your lungs you get enlightenment/BS.

Another much simpler flow of discussion would be:

But how can you say for sure?
Well, because I have a gun, and shut up.